4 ms·
Open source is defined by the Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd At least it should be. I'm not sure what definition
by tovej 11mo ago
Open source is defined by the Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
At least it should be. I'm not sure what definition this petition would use.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- _cenw 11mo agoThe petition should use a more restricted definition, because the OSI definition only deals with the way software is developed and distributed, not how software contributes to the common good. That a lot of open source software is foundational to how most other software is written is incidental for the OSI, but important for this recognition. In fact I see no reason why you can't already get this recognition in the existing legal framework by creating an association with a specific scope.
- fsflover 11mo ago> the OSI definition only deals with the way software is developed and distributed, not how software contributes to the common good So it should be the FSF's definition of free software, https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- _cenw 11mo agoRMS famously had no problem with dual licensing. The definition should. None of the GPL licenses protect from bad stewardship focused on maintaining commercial viability of some product either.